ANYETEY CHANTEY vs. TEI KWABLAH KWEINOR [2020]DLSC8801

Date	2020-05-20
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/25/2019
Citation No.	[2020]DLSC8801

DOTSE JSC (PRESIDING)

APPAU JSC

PWAMANG JSC

DORDZIE (MRS) JSC

OWUSU (MS) JSC

K. ANTWI ABANKWA FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.

ABU JUAN JAGIARA FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT.

[2020]DLSC8801
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >ANYETEY CHANTEY<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>TEI KWABLAH KWEINOR<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

CIVIL
APPEAL NO. J4/25/2019&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 20TH MAY,
2020<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>K.
ANTWI ABANKWA FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

ABU JUAN JAGIARA FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT. <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;<o:p></o:p>DOTSE JSC (PRESIDING), APPAU
JSC, PWAMANG JSC, DORDZIE (MRS) JSC, OWUSU (MS) JSC<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>APPAU,
JSC:-<o:p></o:p>The Court of Appeal, in a unanimous decision,
affirmed the judgment of the trial High Court in favour of the
plaintiff/respondent/respondent against the defendant/appellant/appellant in
this land matter. In the said judgment, the trial High Court dismissed
appellant’s counter-claim, which was also affirmed by the Court of Appeal.
Aggrieved by the concurrent judgment of the Court of Appeal, the
defendant/appellant/appellant has brought this appeal before us, praying for
the reversal of same on the following grounds:<o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
Court of Appeal erred in coming to a conclusion that the identity, extent and
size of the land, the subject-matter, was not in issue as same was one of
agreed fact.<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
Court erred by holding that Exhibit ‘B’, which is the judgment in the case of
AMEODA&nbsp; v PORDIER and AMEODA v FORZI
&amp; Ors [1967] GLR 479; C.A., is binding on the defendant and operated&nbsp; as Estoppel per rem judicatam.<o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
Judgment was against the weight of evidence.<o:p></o:p>For the purposes of this appeal the parties shall,
hereinafter, be referred to as respondent and appellant respectively. <o:p></o:p>In his written submissions filed on 15th
May 2019, the appellant decided to argue all three grounds of appeal together
under the last and omnibus ground; i.e. “The
judgment was against the weight of evidence.” He claimed the disputed land
as belonging to his family and that the respondent’s family is their licensee
as they permitted them to settle on the land. He faulted the two lower courts
for deciding in favour of the respondent by dismissing his counterclaim in the
wake of the overwhelming evidence on record, which suggested that his Tei
Kwabla Forzi family is the owner of the disputed land. He again challenged the
trial court’s preliminary finding that he was not the head of his family and
for that matter could not pursue a counterclaim against the respondent. He
referred the Court to previous cases which he had pursued for and on behalf of
his said family as family head without any challenge from anybody. He contended
that the judgment in the consolidated cases of Ameoda v Pordier and Ameoda v Forzi and Ors. (supra), which the two
lower courts based their decisions on in dismissing his counterclaim, was not
applicable to him, since his immediate Forzie family of Terkpenya, was neithe</main>